Maybe the question should be ‘who will protect the world from America?’

By DOUG THOMPSON - A Capitol Hill Blue Commentary
September 4, 2013

Who burned it and why?

Legendary British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once observed that “Democracy is the worst form of government imaginable…Except for every other form.”

Churchill, of course, was talking about democracy in America. He realized that the American form of government was far from perfect but felt, at the time, that it was preferable to most other forms, including even his own.

As the saying goes: That was then, this is now.

Even those who labor under the illusion that the government which now claims to rule America has any relation to democracy or even the bastardized “Democratic Republic” that was intended by the nation’s founders should be doubting their sanity.

What makes the claim that America is a democracy even more hilarious is the dream that we are somehow “bringing democracy” to other countries whenever we try and justify a lame excuse for involving ourselves in a conflict elsewhere in the world.

President George W. Bush claimed one of the intentions for the ill-advised — and some felt illegal — invasion of Iraq was to “bring democracy” to that part of the world. That was 10 year ago. Is Iraq a democratic society? Hardly. Some could argue that the conditions that now exist in Iraq are no better — and perhaps worse — than those that existed under deposed dictator Saddam Hussein.

Many actions we launch in the Middle East is with the stated goal of “bringing stability” to the area. The result is usually the opposite.

Did America leave Vietnam a better place? Our stated goal there was to prevent a Communist takeover. The “unified” Vietnam we left behind is under Communist control. Is Afghanistan a better place then it was when we went to war there 10 years ago? Is Beirut a better city now than before American involvement there?

For that matter, is America itself now a better place than it was, say, 35 years ago? Do we enjoy real freedom now? Is our standard of living improved? Are we served by elected officials that we feel truly represent our interests?

From where we sit here at Capitol Hill Blue, I’d have to say the answer to such questions is a resounding “no.”

America today is not much of a democracy. It is, for all practical purposes, a totalitarian nation ruled by elected officials who answer not to the majority but to a privileged wealthy few who control Congress and the White House with huge political donations and fatcat lobbyists. Republicans answer to the Koch brothers, who control both the party and the so-called independent “tea party” movement. Democrats answer to George Soros and a gaggle of other billionaires out of the tech industry and other venues. Neither side can control the abuses of the financial sector or Wall Street because those sectors control both parties.

America cannot claim to be a free society because freedom is under assault by both Democrats and Republicans every day. The current occupant of the White House ran for office on the promise of curbing the abuses of freedom and the assaults on the rights of Americans by his predecessor. Once in office, he not only embraced those abuses, he increased them.

Which brings us to the current debate on whether or not America’s military might should be unleashed against Syria because leaders of that country gassed some of its population with chemical weapons.

Some who support such a strike say America must act to punish a tyrant who threatens the safety of the world. Some compare what happened in Syria with the early days of Hitler and say it is the duty of America to protect the world.

But consider this. Given the erosion of democracy in America, the infringement of rights upon American citizens by its own government and the sad fact that just about every nation we have become involved with in the last several decades is now worse off then before, maybe the question that should be asked is: Who is needed to protect the world from America?

It troubles my soul as an American to ask that question but it is, sadly, one that must be posed.

Share this:

17 Responses to Maybe the question should be ‘who will protect the world from America?’

Jon

September 4, 2013 at 10:40 am

Technicality: Who is needed to protect the world from the American Government?

It reminds me quite a bit of medieval times, where the kings and princes would cheerily start wars with each other over some pretext or other. Obtaining consent from the peasants (who got slaughtered in the process) was completely irrelevant.

Noam Chomsky (I’ll bet that name goes over like a lead zeppelin) wrote an essay on how 70% of the people in the USA have effectively zero effect upon how the country is governed.

“Who is needed to protect the world from America?”
A good, but alas, rhetorical question. The answer of course is nobody can and it is not likely to change anytime soon.
Obama seemed like he would be different, but he comes off seeming like a slightly more timid version of Bush on the Syria issue.
The most charitable interpretation is that he got caught waving his dick around with a lot of Red-Line nonsense and now has to back it up. Congress may yet bail him out by saying no. I hope so.
Most of the American people want nothing to do with this, but it will be very close in congress, from the look of it. It would take a Thompsonian level of cynicism to think that this is all a ploy to accelerate the rupture of the Republican party, but who knows? That may be one of the consequences of all of this. Boehner is coup-bait from his own caucus now that he has backed Obama and McConnell has gone completely dark on the issue out of fear of fighting a 2-front war on his right and left simultaneously.

But…To the bigger question of why are we behaving like the nuns of the world and rapping knuckles with cruise missiles to maintain world discipline? I am damned if I can figure this one out. Who is pushing it? The usual NeoCon’s are all over it, but they have zero credibility on the issues of WMD after we spent the last few trillion feeding their fantasies. Judy Miller no longer works at the Times. Ahmed Chalabi is nowhere to be seen. Cheney is no longer VP.

The engineer in me leads me to wonder: What does rocketing Syria do for us? We have no real “interests” (like oil) in the area. No American lives are at risk. Syria is not invading us. We have no credible claim to moral purity on the subject of chemical weapons after Agent Orange and Paraquat.
What this attack will do, should it happen, is add to the growing number of folks who’s brothers, children and friends have been indiscriminately killed by us and will be our lifelong enemies. It is a stupid idea and we are a stupid nation for even considering it.

Jon

September 4, 2013 at 4:57 pm

It does nothing for us. It does a great deal for the pocketbooks of those who make enormous profits off of every missile launched.

Guess who has more influence?

J.

Sandy Price

September 4, 2013 at 5:18 pm

You are correct J. The only process to stop this form of greed is to get to the people behind the religious right (Tea Party). They have chosen their leaders and the rest of us don’t count.

We all have our priorities and most of us here want prosperity for all but we are in a minority. Killing Islam is directing the GOP and the majority of many voters.

We have many strong leaders in our fight for individual freedoms but the majority of the voters operate under their religious leaders. Look at California. I have not run into a single homophobic person here but if we put any action on a ballot, we loose.

Carl Nemo **==

September 4, 2013 at 11:52 am

I’m thinking our grave financial situation is going to be the undoing for our seeming failed experiment at ‘empire’ now run amok.

Basically we are engaging such activities on borrowed money or that created out of thin air courtesy of the Fed~U.S. Treasury axis of counterfeiting evil.

Our Congressional contingent continually kicks the can down the road concerning this grave issue, but the debt chickens will eventually come home to roost. When that happens all hell will break loose not only for our now bloated military, but so too on the domestic front. It’s my belief we are headed for a bust that will make the worldwide depression of the 30’s seem like a cake walk.

Everything within our vision field is an illusory construct based on the borrowing of money to support our military and bloated government agencies down to homes and retail credit on the domestic front. Our annual tax revenues are falling far short of their ability to support our ‘living large’ lifestyle.

Hot, ‘funny money’ in excess of quadrillions of dollars is now holding up this phony planetary paradigm. Each quadrillion is a thousand trillion dollars. This is not simply public debt, but all debt worldwide including future promissory debt related to bloated social programs. Once certain instruments begin to fail it will start an unraveling of thousands of party/counterparty financial agreeements that had no solidity or merit to begin with, backed by nothing other than ink on paper and hollow promises to pay. Warren Buffett has referred to these instruments as financial WMD’s and he’s right. The crisis of 2008 will pale in comparison to what’s looming on the horizon, the U.S. government being the largest planetary debtor for all time.

So it won’t be a military confrontation from abroad that will stop our now rogue juggernaut for a government, but the lack of sound fiscal policies.

We’re in the sweephand mode to the midnight of our national reckoning.

Carl Nemo **==

Sandy Price

September 4, 2013 at 3:22 pm

America is right on track for the plans that were laid down after WW2. I heard them in person and read every level of change that came from the Birch Society. The many elections that followed WW2 were unable to bring about the perfection of Christian laws. Our children learned nothing about the Inquisition that handed over all our social laws to the Pope. Most humans from freedom based nations were exposed to the knowledge that only the God of Jesus Christ had the authority to direct our private lives. Parents were thrilled that their restrictions within their family unit were coming from their religious leaders. Many families were frightened of their children and assumed they knew right from wrong from their classroom teachers.

The Tea Party learned from their religious leaders how to work the message that America is and has always been a government based on God. They learned that the voters did not want this form of government but wanted more influence from Jesus.

What we have now is a civilization of children who refuse to mind their parents and will continue to find themselves in all levels of prison. The library has thousands of books on this situation but sadly one has to read books to get to the facts. Our problem in Syria is based on how we can kill Islam so our Christendom will be saved.

If you can’t read a book on this subject, pick up Rand Paul’s speeches. Listen to the sermons of the Evangelicals and learn about the true future of America.

Keit

September 4, 2013 at 4:40 pm

If you can’t read a book on this subject, pick up Rand Paul’s speeches. Listen to the sermons of the Evangelicals and learn about the true future of America.

Indeed, as Sinclair Lewis once said, “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”

Seems to me we’re just about there.

Doug Thompson

September 4, 2013 at 9:30 pm

I’m sorry but buying into the evangelical and religious arguments of the rabid right means falling for the big lie. Religion has nothing to do with the tea party or the GOP (or the Democrats for that matter). I worked for several years for the GOP consulting firm that created the program that became the tea party. It is funded, backed and driven by two brothers whose goals are power and money — nothing more and God has nothing to do with their goals or plan.

The use of religion is simply a way to draw more of the gullible into the flock — nothing more, nothing less. Once that is accomplished, religious fanaticism and God will be discarded along with other tools that served their purpose.

griff6r

September 6, 2013 at 3:33 pm

Indeed. Pandering to the religious right is no better or worse than the Democrats’ pandering to the Hispanics. And no more damaging.

But it does bring out the emotions – which is really what drives these morons to the polls – and serves as a healthy and effective distraction from the reality of who really runs this country.

Sandy Price

September 6, 2013 at 3:36 pm

I am not asking that a single church be closed. It rests on the intelligence of the head of the household and how they are able to understand why no God, no religion should be chosen to write our laws and then follow the laws by our Federal, State, City governments. I grew up in a religion that was very different than the majority of the people living around us. It worked when children learned of the separation of church and state and understood why this was necessary.

The history of mankind is based on one religion using their government to legislate one religion over another. Many freedom-loving humans wanted out of Europe and to migrate to a land where no God wrote the laws.

The numbers allocated to many humans in the form of a bell curve showed how the attitudes change when people are pitted against each other. Starting in 1954 I found my political spirit under Ike. I read many books that he wrote and were written about him. I figured at that time that if only half of what written about him carried the truth, he would be one of the best American leaders. He was not a religious leader and had no plans to rewrite the Constitution. He was not perfect but was as close to filling the seat of our POTUS as anyone running.

Our elections at this time reflect the new attitude of using religion as a rule for locating our political leaders. The fault lies in the parents of our new voters. When it comes to the social laws, why is abortion even an issue. If you believe that abortion is murder why not raise your kids under that information? The problem is that parents are too damn lazy to lay down the laws for the household, let alone civil laws.

Every day of our lives, we face choices that reflect who we are and why. If we choose to harm anyone, we choose to pay the price. When I had access to a fabulous library I chose to respect but not worship any God. I’ve hurt no one with this choice. In 2000 I learned that the Republican Arizona Caucus asked me to leave party because the new GOP is forming under the laws of Jesus Christ.

Jon

September 6, 2013 at 7:50 pm

I’m going to ask that all churches be closed.

Or at the very least be subject to property tax and other secular obligations. I do not worship at your church; Why does it get an exemption from the property tax I pay?

J.

Sandy Price

September 7, 2013 at 12:42 pm

J. I would not go that far. Many churches do wonderful things for the people in need. When they draw the line at biblical laws and force them on the members of their congregation, I still do fun raising, for them. Every American should have the freedom of choice, including believing in God.

The churches have full responsibility for the laws that they pass but the government changing laws should be out of the question.

Madison and Jefferson had a long line of correspondence on this subject. Most Americans agreed with this premise until our government allowerd Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to have entrance into the White House. It was used to guarantee a victory for G.W. Bush’s election…and it worked.

I see wonderful things from the organized Christian groups around the holidays and I stood in front of the Post Office in Cambria during the Christmas Holidays ringing my bell. My bookstore had closed and I needed to be part of our villsge. I became a docent at the Hearst Castle based on my knowledge of the history of the area. I worked with Abused animals because of my love of animals. I was Hospice trained at no pay when I realize the pain of dying was ignored by many God fearing people.

Jon

September 8, 2013 at 2:13 pm

Churches do good, very much. But secular organizations can and do do similar things without any magic exemption from the usual rate we have to pay for our freight (if I may mix a metaphor).

A church cannot pass a law. They could make a regulation, and exclude those who do not abide by such a regulation (no shoes, no shirt, no service) but that’s not a law. It only becomes a de facto (not de jure) law when every politician *has* to claim to belong to some church or other.

Some states (Texas, among others) still legally prohibit an avowed atheist from holding public office. That IS a major problem.

I see wonderful things done by disorganized churches, particularly providing small halls for public performances by amateur singers and choruses, and that they do wonderfully. That they do good is not argued against.

That they do bad is also noted, and without an accounting it’s difficult to tell if they are a net benefit or a net parasite upon society.

Ironic that the US President who won a Nobel Peace prize, may be the one that kicks off WWIII.

Carl Nemo **==

September 5, 2013 at 8:00 pm

His award of the Nobel Peace prize was a fluke simply based on the fact the Nobel committee had seemingly lost its steerage in recent years. Even key administators of the prize aren’t all too pleased with the selections in recent times.

At the time, if I recall correctly the awarding of the prize came across almost as an embarrassment for the President. He knew he didn’t deserve such. The proceeds of the prize were awarded to charity.

The committee has been chided in recent times for making an attempt to getting it ‘right’ as opposed to politicizing the award.

That too explains why this president doesn’t take the prize all that seriously, not allowing it to influence him concerning the waging of war vs. peace.